Lou FCD
Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote (JohnW @ April 29 2015,13:36) | | Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 29 2015,10:31) | The IDiots seems to have found their new meaningless buzz-term to cling to, "active information".
Over at ENV Winston Ewert tries to show how the evolution of birds requires this guiding "active information"
| Quote | To put the subject in a specific context, consider the example of birds. Birds are biological marvels. They are in constant struggle against the laws of physics. Entropy is perpetually trying to break birds apart, but they remain alive. A chaotic environment tries to prevent successful reproduction, yet birds reproduce copiously. Gravity tries to keep birds on the ground, yet they fly. This is not to say that birds violate the laws of physics; rather, they live, reproduce, and fly even though the laws of physics make these tasks rather difficult.
Clearly, some configurations of matter are birds. However, almost all configurations of matter are not birds. If one were to pick randomly from all possible configurations of matter, the probability of obtaining a bird would be infinitesimally small. It is almost impossible to obtain a bird by random sampling uniformly from all configurations of matter.
However, birds actually do exist. Given the essentially zero probability of such a configuration of matter, how could this happen? Considered in a materialist framework, the only possibility of explaining the origin of birds is a bird-making machine, process, or search. Something has to be in operation that greatly increases the probability of birds. The Darwinist will identify this process with Darwinian evolution.
linky |
Bolding mine. Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't he making the incredibly simple-minded "lottery" fallacy? How did he determine that evolution had birds in mind as its only possible target outcome? We already know of millions of other flying creatures in at least three other different "designs" - insects, bats, pterosaurs. Lots of people have pointed out that evolution has no pre-specified "targets". The only time you'd need any active inputs are cases like artificial selection which manipulates the environment to produce desired results.
Are all the IDiots too stupid to get it? That's a rhetorical question BTW. ;) |
This:
| Quote | | Clearly, some configurations of matter are birds. However, almost all configurations of matter are not birds. If one were to pick randomly from all possible configurations of matter, the probability of obtaining a bird would be infinitesimally small. It is almost impossible to obtain a bird by random sampling uniformly from all configurations of matter. |
works with anything at all.
| Quote | | Clearly, some configurations of matter are gravel on the street outside my window. However, almost all configurations of matter are not gravel on the street outside my window. If one were to pick randomly from all possible configurations of matter, the probability of obtaining gravel on the street outside my window would be infinitesimally small. It is almost impossible to obtain gravel on the street outside my window by random sampling uniformly from all configurations of matter. |
Argumentum ad gravel. |
It works with anything and everything except hydrogen, as I understand it. Therefore, helium is intelligently designed. It should be pretty simple to calculate the FIASCOBS in a Helium atom, right?Can we get them to calculate that over at the IDiotasylum? How does that relate to the (completely arbitrary) 500 bits threshold (or whatever it was)? How does it compare to the peanut butter sandwich? How does it compare to the bird?
--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?
Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend
|
